See BxN as sacrificing the minor exchange just like you see RxN as sacrificing the exchange.
When to trade bishop for knight
Sometimes it is worth giving up a Bishop for Knight if you can ruin your opponent's pawn skeleton. This is seen in openings such as the Nimzo-Indian Defence and French: McCutcheon Variation.
I have also heard that the Queenside pieces are of less value than the Kingside, therefore occasionally swapping the Queen's Bishop for King's Knight is a worthwhile trade (the King's Knight is an excellent defender). Here is one example.
#24
I do not agree with the last position.
1 c3 or 1 Qe2 may be better than 1 Bg5.
After 1 Bg5 h6 2 Bh4 preserving the bishop's pair may be better than 2 Bxf6.
After 2 Bxf6 Qxf6 3 Qe2 c5 black opens the position for his bishop's pair.
Richter-Veresov attack is really only working if you trade your black bishop for black's knight on f6 and double their kingside pawns.
@tygxc You are right. c3, Qe2, and Bh4 could all be better moves. However, even after 2. Bxf6 Qxf6, 3. Qe2 c5, 4. dxc5 Bxc5, White still has a +0.15 advantage. My point is that the power of the Bishop pair seems to be exaggerated, with most players not being good enough to fully capitalize with the two bishops.
#27
The bishop's pair offers a long term endgame advantage, which can win by itself. If you take from the initial position a knight away from one side and a bishop away from the other side, then the side with the bishop's pair can win.
#26
Richter - Veresov is not really worth it. The loss of the bishop's pair is worse than the doubled pawn.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1082377
However, in the Richter - Rauzer Variation the trade BxN makes sense
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044371
bishops tend to be better in endgames with pawns on both flanks, but when all the action is taking place in one sector of the board sometimes a knight can be the stronger piece. 🐴
The other reason would be to create critical pawn structure weaknesses following recaptures.